DOCSLIB.ORG

For Simulation Use Only I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Simulation Use Only I For Simulation Use Only i For Simulation Use Only George Bush School of Government and Public Service Nuclear Engineering Department Nuclear Security, Science and Policy Institute (NSSPI) Texas A&M University May 6, 2009 Simulated Interdiction: The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) Table of Contents Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………. ………. iii Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 1 Team Assignments …………………………………………………………………… 3 Schedule …………………………………………………………………………... ..... 4 Houston Building Map …………………………………………………………......... 5 Communications Plan ………………………………………………………………... 6 Regional Map ……………………………………………………………………........ 7 Country Background Notes ……………………………………………………......... 8 United States of America ……………………………………………………… 8 Geography ……………………………………………………………... 8 People ………………………………………………………………….. 8 Government and Economy ………………………………………......... 8 Nuclear Policy, Nonproliferation, and the Proliferation Security Initiative ………………………………... 9 Technical Capabilities to Support PSI ………………………................ 9 Foreign Policy and External Relations …………………………........... 10 Bearian Federation ……………………………………………………….......... 14 Geography ……………………………………………………………... 14 People …………………………………………………………….......... 14 Government and Economy ………………………………………......... 14 Nuclear Policy, Nonproliferation, and the Proliferation Security Initiative ………………………………... 15 Technical Capabilities to Support PSI ………………………................ 16 Foreign Policy and External Relations …………………………........... 16 Republic of Brazoristan ……………………………………………………….. 18 Geography ……………………………………………………………... 18 People ………………………………………………………………….. 18 Government and Economy ……………………………………………. 18 Nuclear Policy, Nonproliferation, and the Proliferation Security Initiative ………………………………... 19 Technical Capabilities to Support PSI ………………………………… 20 Foreign Policy and External Relations ………………………............... 20 Republic of Bevostan ………………………………………………………….. 23 Geography ……………………………………………………………... 23 i For Simulation Use Only People ………………………………………………………………….. 23 Government and Economy ……………………………………………. 23 Nuclear Policy, Nonproliferation, and the Proliferation Security Initiative ………………………………... 26 Technical Capabilities to Support PSI ………………………................ 26 Foreign Policy and External Relations ………………………............... 26 People’s Republic of Choonguk ………………………………………………. 29 Geography ……………………………………………………………... 29 People ………………………………………………………………….. 29 Government and Economy ……………………………………………. 29 Nuclear Policy, Nonproliferation, and the Proliferation Security Initiative ………………………………... 29 Foreign Policy and External Relations ………………………………... 30 Democratic People’s Republic of Pulyang ……………………………………. 32 Geography ……………………………………………………………... 32 People ………………………………………………………………….. 32 Government and Economy ……………………………………………. 32 Pulyang’s Nuclear Program …………………………………………… 32 Pulyang and Parthia Proliferation Connection ………………………… 32 Appendix A Interdiction of the BBC China …………………………………………... 34 Appendix B International Law and WMD Interdiction ………………………………. 35 Appendix C United Nations Security Council Resolutions …………………………... 40 Resolution 1540 (2004) ………………………………………………………... 41 Resolution 1737 (2006) ………………………………………………………... 44 Resolution 1747 (2007) ………………………………………………………... 51 Resolution 1803 (2008) ………………………………………………………... 58 References ...................................................................................................................... 64 ii For Simulation Use Only George Bush School of Government and Public Service Nuclear Engineering Department Nuclear Security, Science and Policy Institute (NSSPI) Texas A&M University May 6, 2009 Simulated Interdiction: The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) Acknowledgements The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provided the funding for this project, which allowed the Capstone students to interview experts in the area of nuclear proliferation. The project was funded specifically through the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation office (NA-20). These interviews were conducted in Washington, D.C. and at research institutions throughout the United States. In addition to their generous financial contribution, the NNSA provided insight and guidance throughout the creation process. The Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES), at Texas A&M University was essential to this project. TEES allowed the capstone to run the final play of the simulation from their state of the art simulation and gaming facility, located at the Multi- Program Research and Education Facility, in the Donald L. Houston Building on the Texas A&M University campus. The Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs and the Masters Program in International Affairs of the George Bush School also provided funding for the research and conduct of this simulation. iii For Simulation Use Only George Bush School of Government and Public Service Nuclear Engineering Department Nuclear Security, Science and Policy Institute (NSSPI) Texas A&M University May 6, 2009 Simulated Interdiction: The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) Introduction Purpose This simulation is designed to assist future policy makers in asking the right questions at the right time in a real world PSI contingency. The focus of the simulation is diplomacy and the international decision-making process, with an emphasis on the impact of technical information on political decision-making. Although based on existing states in the international system, the countries, other than the United States, identified in the simulation are fictional. The decisions made by the country teams in this simulation are not meant to predict the decisions of their real world counterparts, but are rather one outcome of simulated international diplomacy, given the varied interests at stake. The scenario chosen, while possible, is also not a prediction of future events. Methodology The simulation is designed to require players to make decisions, under time constraints, with imperfect information and to seek additional information through international diplomacy. Teams will need to focus on the key issues at hand, and refrain from deliberating long-term or strategic issues, except as they impact the current crisis. The teams should make decisions that are plausible given their states’ interests and capabilities. An After Action Report (AAR) will assess the outcome of the game, the decisions made, and the role each team member played in making those decisions. Teams Players will be assigned to teams representing the United States and the simulated states of Bearia, Brazoristan, and Bevostan. The players will represent the president and high level members of the government in each state. Each player will fill a specified role as assigned by the “President” of the country. There will also be the opportunity for written consultation with a representative of the fictional states of Choonguk and Pulyang, as they are not represented by teams in this PSI simulation. Scenario/Injects The simulation will cover a fictional scenario in which a cargo aircraft may be attempting to deliver sensitive nuclear components to a country of proliferation concern. The cargo aircraft has a scheduled refueling stop in Central Asia, which opens the door for a possible interdiction. Throughout the game play, each team will receive injects of information from their intelligence 1 For Simulation Use Only services, or requests for guidance from government agencies. These injects will create the need for international diplomacy, to confirm or improve the information received. They will also drive the decision making process. Research The Capstone students studied an extensive bibliography on the PSI and previous international interdiction efforts. This study was conducted using both library and online research. The Capstone students also interviewed experts closely associated with the PSI and other nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Along with former senior policymakers in the U.S. government, representatives of the following agencies and organizations were interviewed: • National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy • Arms Control Association • Center for Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies at Georgetown University • Congressional Research Service • U.S. Department of Defense • Embassy of India, Washington, D.C. • Hudson Institute • James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory • Los Alamos National Laboratory • National Defense University • National Security Council • U.S. Department of State Classification The simulation is not classified, but it is not a public event. Although most of the country teams are simulated, nuclear proliferation is a sensitive issue. Comments made during the session are off-the-record and not for attribution. 2 For Simulation Use Only George Bush School of Government and Public Service Nuclear Engineering Department Nuclear Security, Science and Policy Institute (NSSPI) Texas A&M University May 6, 2009 Simulated Interdiction: The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) Team Assignments United States (USA) Brazoristan (BRZ) Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Dick Chilcoat (Leader) Prof. Sara Daly (Leader) Stephen Beard Stephen Bradley Brian Cratcchiola Kimberly Budil Andrew Farmer Marie Cronholm John Knezovich Edgar Garcia Amy Potter Charlotte Sherman Jeff Prokopowicz Alissa Stafford Bevostan (BEV) Griffin Rozell (Leader) Bearia (BER) Stephen Davis Prof. Jim Olson (Leader) Nancy DeBono
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guía COL MUN 2021
    CNCMUN IV Background Guide Council of Leaders COL Presidents: Gabriel Hernández and Isabella Ospina Gabriela Conde and Tomás Ortiz Executive editors Gabriel Hernández Isabella Ospina Sub-editor Sub-editor Table of contents I. Letter from the chair II. Introduction to the committee III. First agenda: Middle East and Israel Conflict A. Introduction B. History C. Current Situation i. Right of return ii. Security and Terrorism D. Different Perspectives IV Second agenda: Iran and USA crisis A. Introduction B. History i. Precedents of the Iran-U.S.A. relation ii. Incidents iii. Nuclear weapons development C. Current Situation D. Different Perspectives V. Information of Mandatory Revision VI. QARMA’S (Questions a Resolution Must Answer) VII. Bibliography I. Letter from the chair Estimated delegates, We are Gabriel Hernández and Isabella Ospina, and as presidents of the committee of Council of Leaders, we’d like to extend to you a warm welcome to the 4th edition of CNCMUN. This time, the topics to be discussed are related to the Middle East conflict with other countries such as Israel and the United States - Iran crisis. We are appreciative to receive delegates that are open to an active participation and take this as learning and enriching experience. We are looking forward to achieve this committee's goals and make this a joyful experience for everyone. We are expecting to see you soon. II. Introduction to the committee Council of leaders is an experimental committee in the Model of United Nations that consists in setting out a scene in which world leaders with greater significance discuss and debate about current controversial and important issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The IRGC in the Age of Ebrahim Raisi: Decision-Making and Factionalism in Iran’S Revolutionary Guard
    The IRGC in the Age of Ebrahim Raisi: Decision-Making and Factionalism in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard SAEID GOLKAR AUGUST 2021 KASRA AARABI Contents Executive Summary 4 The Raisi Administration, the IRGC and the Creation of a New Islamic Government 6 The IRGC as the Foundation of Raisi’s Islamic Government The Clergy and the Guard: An Inseparable Bond 16 No Coup in Sight Upholding Clerical Superiority and Preserving Religious Legitimacy The Importance of Understanding the Guard 21 Shortcomings of Existing Approaches to the IRGC A New Model for Understanding the IRGC’s Intra-elite Factionalism 25 The Economic Vertex The Political Vertex The Security-Intelligence Vertex Charting IRGC Commanders’ Positions on the New Model Shades of Islamism: The Ideological Spectrum in the IRGC Conclusion 32 About the Authors 33 Saeid Golkar Kasra Aarabi Endnotes 34 4 The IRGC in the Age of Ebrahim Raisi Executive Summary “The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] has excelled in every field it has entered both internationally and domestically, including security, defence, service provision and construction,” declared Ayatollah Ebrahim Raisi, then chief justice of Iran, in a speech to IRGC commanders on 17 March 2021.1 Four months on, Raisi, who assumes Iran’s presidency on 5 August after the country’s June 2021 election, has set his eyes on further empowering the IRGC with key ministerial and bureaucratic positions likely to be awarded to guardsmen under his new government. There is a clear reason for this ambition. Expanding the power of the IRGC serves the interests of both Raisi and his 82-year-old mentor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Gray Zone Strategy
    Iran’s Gray Zone Strategy Cornerstone of its Asymmetric Way of War By Michael Eisenstadt* ince the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has distinguished itself (along with Russia and China) as one of the world’s foremost “gray zone” actors.1 For nearly four decades, however, the United States has struggled to respond effectively to this asymmetric “way of war.” Washington has often Streated Tehran with caution and granted it significant leeway in the conduct of its gray zone activities due to fears that U.S. pushback would lead to “all-out” war—fears that the Islamic Republic actively encourages. Yet, the very purpose of this modus operandi is to enable Iran to pursue its interests and advance its anti-status quo agenda while avoiding escalation that could lead to a wider conflict. Because of the potentially high costs of war—especially in a proliferated world—gray zone conflicts are likely to become increasingly common in the years to come. For this reason, it is more important than ever for the United States to understand the logic underpinning these types of activities, in all their manifestations. Gray Zone, Asymmetric, and Hybrid “Ways of War” in Iran’s Strategy Gray zone warfare, asymmetric warfare, and hybrid warfare are terms that are often used interchangeably, but they refer neither to discrete forms of warfare, nor should they be used interchangeably—as they often (incor- rectly) are. Rather, these terms refer to that aspect of strategy that concerns how states employ ways and means to achieve national security policy ends.2 Means refer to the diplomatic, informational, military, economic, and cyber instruments of national power; ways describe how these means are employed to achieve the ends of strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 Concerning Restrictive Measures Against Iran and Repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, P
    02012R0267 — EN — 09.07.2019 — 026.002 — 1 This text is meant purely as a documentation tool and has no legal effect. The Union's institutions do not assume any liability for its contents. The authentic versions of the relevant acts, including their preambles, are those published in the Official Journal of the European Union and available in EUR-Lex. Those official texts are directly accessible through the links embedded in this document ►B COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1) Amended by: Official Journal No page date ►M1 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2012 of 23 April 2012 L 110 17 24.4.2012 ►M2 Council Regulation (EU) No 708/2012 of 2 August 2012 L 208 1 3.8.2012 ►M3 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 L 208 2 3.8.2012 ►M4 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October L 282 16 16.10.2012 2012 ►M5 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1016/2012 of 6 November L 307 5 7.11.2012 2012 ►M6 Council Regulation (EU) No 1067/2012 of 14 November 2012 L 318 1 15.11.2012 ►M7 Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 L 356 34 22.12.2012 ►M8 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December L 356 55 22.12.2012 2012 ►M9 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 L 156 3 8.6.2013 ►M10 Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 L 158 1 10.6.2013 ►M11 Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013
    [Show full text]
  • The Coming Iran Nuclear Talks Openings and Obstacles
    The Coming Iran Nuclear Talks Openings and Obstacles DENNIS ROSS January 2021 he Middle East will not be a priority in the Biden administration’s approach to foreign policy. But the T Iranian nuclear program will require a response.* With the Iranian parliament having adopted legislation mandating uranium enrichment to 20 percent and suspension of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections if sanctions are not lifted by February 2020 in response to the targeted killing of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh— and with Iran now having accumulated twelve times the low-enriched uranium permitted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the administration will have to deal with the Iranian challenge.1 To be sure, the nuclear program and its potential to make Iran a nuclear weapons state are not the only challenges the Islamic Republic poses: the regime’s ballistic missile program and destabilizing and aggressive behavior in the region threaten conflicts that can escalate both vertically and horizontally. But it is the nuclear program that is most pressing. *The author would like to thank a number of his Washington Institute colleagues—Katherine Bauer, Patrick Clawson, Michael Eisenstadt, Barbara Leaf, Matthew Levitt, David Makovsky, David Pollock, Robert Satloff, and Michael Singh—for the helpful comments they provided as he prepared this paper. He also wants to give special thanks to several people outside the Institute—Robert Einhorn, Richard Nephew, David Petraeus, Norman Roule, and Karim Sadjadpour—for the thoughtful comments
    [Show full text]
  • Iran and Israel's National Security in the Aftermath of 2003 Regime Change in Iraq
    Durham E-Theses IRAN AND ISRAEL'S NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF 2003 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ ALOTHAIMIN, IBRAHIM,ABDULRAHMAN,I How to cite: ALOTHAIMIN, IBRAHIM,ABDULRAHMAN,I (2012) IRAN AND ISRAEL'S NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF 2003 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4445/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 . IRAN AND ISRAEL’S NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF 2003 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ BY: IBRAHIM A. ALOTHAIMIN A thesis submitted to Durham University in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy DURHAM UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS March 2012 1 2 Abstract Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran has continued to pose a serious security threat to Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue No. 486 AUGUST 2021
    Issue Brief ISSUE NO. 486 AUGUST 2021 © 2021 Observer Research Foundation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, archived, retained or transmitted through print, speech or electronic media without prior written approval from ORF. The Limits of Military Coercion in Halting Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme Kunal Singh Abstract Israel believes that the use of force is essential to stopping Iran from making the nuclear bomb. A vocal section of the strategic affairs community in the United States agrees with the proposition. This brief argues that military means are unlikely to sabotage the nuclear weapons programme of an advanced-stage bomb-seeker like Iran. Moreover, use of force could be counterproductive as it can incentivise Iran’s pursuit of the bomb, and it may erode the confidence required for diplomatic negotiations that can possibly help cease the weapons programme. Attribution: Kunal Singh, “The Limits of Military Coercion in Halting Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme,” ORF Issue Brief No. 486, August 2021, Observer Research Foundation. 01 n early April in Vienna, the Biden administration initiated efforts with Iran to reinstate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, from which the United States (US) had exited during the tenure of former US President Donald Trump. A week later, an explosion at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment Ifacility caused a power blackout. Israel, the state most vocally opposed to the JCPOA, is widely believed to have
    [Show full text]
  • News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (November 25 – December 1, 2020)
    רמה כ ז מל ו תשר מה ו ד י ע י ן ( למ מ" ) כרמ ז מה י עד מל ו ד י ע י ן ול רט ו ר News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (November 25 – December 1, 2020) Overview In the Gaza Strip, as well as in Judea and Samaria the sharp rise in the number of active Covid-19 cases continues. As of December 1, 2020, there were 9,627 active cases in the Gaza Strip and 11,692 in Judea and Samaria. While Hamas continues implementing local and regional preventive measures, the Palestinian Authority (PA) announced it would again impose a full lockdown throughout its territories over the coming weekend. So far the preventive measures taken by Hamas and the PA do not appear to be effective, mainly because the local populations violate them extensively. This past week the Gaza Strip was quiet. In Judea and Samaria a ramming attack was carried out at the al-Za'im roadblock, east of Jerusalem. The terrorist was shot and killed. On the roads in Judea and Samaria there has been a considerable increase in the number of stones, rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at civilian vehicles, including civilian buses. Following the renewal of civilian and security coordination between the PA and Israel, the PA has been looking for creative ways to circumvent Israel's objection to the transfer of salaries to Palestinian terrorist prisoners and the families of shaheeds. In the meantime the Israeli media reported that on November 29, 2020, Israel's political-security cabinet authorized the transfer of 2.5 billion shekels (about $760 million) to the PA.
    [Show full text]
  • Reimagining US Strategy in the Middle East
    REIMAGININGR I A I I G U.S.S STRATEGYT A E Y IIN THET E MMIDDLED L EEASTS Sustainable Partnerships, Strategic Investments Dalia Dassa Kaye, Linda Robinson, Jeffrey Martini, Nathan Vest, Ashley L. Rhoades C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA958-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0662-0 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. 2021 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover composite design: Jessica Arana Image: wael alreweie / Getty Images Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • B COUNCIL DECISION 2011/235/CFSP of 12 April 2011 Concerning Restrictive Measures Directed Against Certain Persons and Entities in View of the Situation in Iran
    2011D0235 — EN — 12.03.2013 — 003.001 — 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents ►B COUNCIL DECISION 2011/235/CFSP of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51) Amended by: Official Journal No page date ►M1 Council Implementing Decision 2011/670/CFSP of 10 October 2011 L 267 13 12.10.2011 ►M2 Council Decision 2012/168/CFSP of 23 March 2012 L 87 85 24.3.2012 ►M3 Council Decision 2012/810/CFSP of 20 December 2012 L 352 49 21.12.2012 ►M4 Council Decision 2013/124/CFSP of 11 March 2013 L 68 57 12.3.2013 2011D0235 — EN — 12.03.2013 — 003.001 — 2 ▼B COUNCIL DECISION 2011/235/CFSP of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof, Whereas: (1) On 21 March 2011, the Council reiterated its deep concern about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran. (2) The Council underlined in particular the dramatic increase in executions in recent months and the systematic repression of Iranian citizens, who face harassment and arrests for exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The Union also reiterated its strong condemnation of the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran Puts a 21% Rise in Annual Foreign Trade on Agenda Loss of Gen. Hejazi Is Really a Sorrowful Tragedy, Says Leader
    WWW.TEHRANTIMES.COM I N T E R N A T I O N A L D A I L Y 8 Pages Price 50,000 Rials 1.00 EURO 4.00 AED 42nd year No.13923 Tuesday APRIL 20, 2021 Farvardin 31, 1400 Ramadan 7, 1442 Iran says it always Hassan Yazdani just Pakistan: TLP protesters Seven metropolises welcomes dialogue with wants gold at Tokyo free abducted policemen to become Saudi Arabia Page 3 Olympics Page 3 after violence Page 5 age-friendly Page 7 Loss of Gen. Hejazi is really a sorrowful tragedy, says Leader TEHRAN— In a message on Monday Aya- and full of motivation and determination.” tollah Ali Khamenei offered his condolences Other senior Iranian officials including on the death of Brigadier General Seyyed President Hassan Rouhani; Parliament Netanyahu is in Mohammad Hejazi, Deputy Commander Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf; of the IRGC Quds Force. Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General “With great regret, I received the news Mohammad Bagheri: IRGC Commander of the passing of the honorable Gener- Major General Hossein Salami; Vice-Pres- al Seyed Mohammad Hejazi. May God ident Es’hagh Jahangiri: Judiciary Chief bless him and grant him peace,” Ayatollah Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi: and De- Khamenei remarked. fense Minister Brigadier General Amir See page 3 The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Hatami sent messages of condolences described General Hejazi as a person with over the death of the general. sheer despair “dynamic thought, a heart full of true faith Continued on page 2 Iran puts a 21% rise in annual foreign trade on agenda TEHRAN – Head of Iran’s Trade Promotion country’s foreign trade, one is the case in Organization (TPO) said the country has which Iran will reach an agreement with put a 21-percent rise in foreign trade on the the world powers on the nuclear deal and agenda for the current Iranian calendar year the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Containing Iran: Strategies for Addressing the Iranian Nuclear Challenge Met Through Patient and Forward-Looking Policymaking
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Purchase this document TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Corporation View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Containing Iran Strategies for Addressing the Iranian Nuclear Challenge Robert J. Reardon Supported by the Stanton Foundation C O R P O R A T I O N The research described in this report was supported by the Stanton Foundation.
    [Show full text]